[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by jthig32

I walked through this comparison with a friend of mine the other day, and I thought it was an interesting thought process:

As kids, most of us boys (and many girls) love to play with firecrackers and BB Guns. They're probably roughly analogous in terms of fun/danger, right? You have to be pretty stupid to severely injure yourself with either, right?

And, hell, they're fun. Who doesn't love shooting something with a BB Gun? Or things that explode and make loud noises?

And as we get older, we like to escalate things, right? Except, at some point long ago, someone said "Well, here's an M80, but that's about the best I can do for you". As a society, we basically decided that we don't want recreational bombs being traded in the market.

Some probably find this disappointing. I mean how cool would it be to go buy a big ass bomb and blow it up in the middle of nowhere? It's be a freaking blast. And, generally speaking, responsible people would do so without being injured. There'd be accidents, as there will be with anything, but by and large those that wanted them for pure enjoyment would use them for that purpose. They would be, after all, tools, not the problem.And yet we live without them. Because when they fall into the wrong hands, they become incredibly efficient tools for causing mass destruction and harm. And so we all live without the freedom to buy a bomb.

On the flip side, guns continue to escalate. Yes, many guns are tools, either for hunting, or home defense or other reasons. But no one can deny the lethal nature of modern assault-type rifles. They're "literally" designed to be efficient human killers, that double as fun toys.

And make no mistake, the same inane argument about people "making their own" applies to bombs. You can make bombs. You can mix chemicals that produce a reaction. I suspect it's rather easy, with a little research. And yet, no rational person would argue that bombs being illegal hasn't affected the ability of the mass public to procure them.

Maybe this comparison only makes sense in my head, but I think it's interesting how society decides that one thing is irrelevant to freedom and one is essential. And this is not to say that assault rifles are the main problem in the gun control debate. I fully realize how lethal a simple semi-auto pistol is. I'm just musing about the differences in how we view things as a society.

I like your logic, but in my opinion it is terribly flawed.

Lets take your bomb thoughts. Making a bomb is seriously easy. It happens over in lots of countries - outside the US - on a way too common theme. These people don't have access to making the bullets, and bombs work so much easier -- so they use them.

You make a law against it, but everyone knows that the bad guys will have these, and that if we don't have a deterrent against it -- they will use them. See Israel.

Guns are the equalizer. A 120 lb woman who can wield a gun can eliminate a threat from a bomb carrying 320 lb beast of a man. As bad a$$ as the man may be, he can't walk through bullets -- hence the reason that the gun is still around -- it is a tool - not the problem.

I do understand the logic of limiting assault weapons. I just think it is flawed logic. Yes you will save some who would have died. No you won't save most as the person would just find a different way to do it. The flaw is that you also open up the ability of crooks to be even more brazen and kill others because you don't have the "equalizer" there to deter it.

Would you rather go into a house that you know doesn't have an assault weapon in it -- when you have one (you being the outlaw) or would you rather worry about going into that house because they probably have that weapon? I know that in the end, if someone in my household was killed by an outlaw that had an assault weapon, and I couldn't defend my self because they were outlawed -- then I would probably become an outlaw myself. I would find a way to defend myself and my family regardless.

The law written didn't stop the outlaw -- it only stopped the lawful person from being able to defend themselves.

With that said, where do you draw the line? Should I be a lawful citizen or an outlaw? You will never eliminate the guns because like drugs their is a market for them. You can just make them more expensive by creating a black market for them. They will always be available due to human engineering or theft -- if you know the right people or have enough money.

So why are you really trying to eliminate them from the law abiding people?

As far as bombs go -- a trained person can build that in about 10 minutes at Home Depot. Yet we aren't going to shut down Home Depot are we?

As far at the automobile argument -- funny how guns work everyone up, yet they justify the automobile.... according to the FBI statistics -- In 2010 there were 358 murders involving rifles. Murders involving the use of pistols in the US that same year totaled 6,009, with another 1,939 murders with the firearm type unreported. (NOTE this does not include suicide). So at most ~2300 deaths involving assault weapons (and this is including all except handguns).
Yet in the same year 32,885 died on US highways. Over 14 Times more people killed on the highways.

Why is it the guns that we want to pursue? I don't understand the logic.

Yes I know that a few people might be saved by the assault weapon ban -- I also know that a few more might be killed by the assault weapon ban. So we are worried about the scraps instead of the meal. Typical logic in today's America -- waste a dollar to save a penny. Just make sure that it doesn't effect me.

Now to give my opinion about the vehicle situation. Why aren't all vehicles equipped with a blow device that won't allow them to start with alcohol on your breath. We have the technology already -- why not just pass a law effecting everyone. Why not have a speed limiting device that would not allow a vehicle to go over this speed. We have the technology -- why not pass the law -- it would save lives. Why not equip a car with a chip that reads speed limits and put a transponder in the speed limit sign poles so that you can't speed -- we have the technology and it would save lives. Why not pass a law that all cars require all of this?

Now - who is going to pay for it?

At least with these things - you could effect a larger number of people.